Thursday, 22 December 2011

On 15 December, the Ephraim Hardcastle column in the Daily Mail wrote:

Tory MP Zac Goldsmith’s insensitive comparison of tabloid newspapers to Auschwitz – ‘no one stated that Auschwitz should have been kept open because it created jobs’ – reminds me of a re-mark made by his late father, Sir James Goldsmith, about why he felt no empathy for Holocaust victims: ‘These people lacked the initiative to get out.’

Jemima Khan, daughter of James, sister of Zac, tweeted:

Khan complained to the Mail and the PCC and the article was quickly removed from the online version of the Hardcastle column.

Following my item on December 7 in which I claimed that the late Sir James Goldsmith had remarked that victims of the Holocaust ‘lacked the initiative to get out’, I would like to clarify that he said no such thing. A number of Sir James’s relatives were murdered in the Holocaust, and he counted two Holocaust survivors among his closest friends. As his family has pointed out, he would never have made these remarks. My apologies to the family for any upset caused.

Given there is, according to the article, a 'growing obesity epidemic' it appears those 'magic pills' didn't work.

Surprisingly.

Incidentally, this story, like a similar version in the Mail, was based on a report in yesterday's Sunday Times. The Express says the pill is 'without any side effects'. The Mail claims at the start there are no 'nasty side effects'. At the end of the article, however, the Mail states:

Side-effects are predicted to be limited to bouts of nausea, but OAP-189 will have to go through extensive human testing before it reaches the market, which is expected to take between five and seven years.

Ah. So there could be 'bouts of nausea' and it could be another 5 years - at least - before the product might be available. After 'extensive human testing'. In which time, the absence, or otherwise, of side effects might be rather more clear.

Contrary to claims in your article, “Barmy EU ‘colder fridges’ order will cost us £100m”, 12 December 2011, there are no new EU regulations ordering supermarkets to turn down fridge temperatures. The facts are less chilling.

EU member states have asked the Commission to look into the fact that supermarkets’ own meat cutting plants are not covered by the same hygiene regulations as independent plants, even though they often process more meat.

So the Commission is carrying out a fact finding exercise, to make sure consumers are properly protected.

No changes have been proposed and none could enter into force without full scrutiny by MEPs and national ministers.

On December 6 under the headline Xmas dinner Is On £1m Lotto Win Coach, we wrongly reported that Mr Paul Trainor (right) had won a £1million Lottery prize. In fact the prize was won by another person.

Mr Trainor does not work at the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, nor did he buy a turkey-dinner for work colleagues or say the he was going to buy a new car. We are happy to correct the position and apologise to Mr Trainor for any embarrassment or confusion caused as a result.

The Commission generally only considers complaints from those directly involved in the stories about which they are complaining. This is for reasons of co-operation, information and consent: often it will not be possible to come to a view under the Code without the input of a first party. In addition, any remedial action as a result of the complaint – or any decision issued by the Commission – would require consent. In this case, the Commission had contacted the BBC following receipt of the complaints in order to establish whether it wished to complain about the accuracy of the coverage. It had made clear that it did not wish to complain.

The Commission understood the position outlined by the complainants; however, it had to decide whether it was able to pursue the matter without the consent and co-operation of the BBC. It decided that it was unable to do so: it was for the BBC to complain about the coverage. In addition, the BBC’s position had been outlined in the article (albeit not with the prominence that one complainant had wished). Again, this was an issue that the Commission considered required direct involvement. It was not able to engage with the newspaper – or arrange for any remedial action – without the organisation’s consent. Ultimately, the Commission considered that it was unable to take the matter forward without the involvement of the BBC.

There were some outstanding concerns about the follow-up coverage in the Daily Mail on 29th and 30th September. The Commission noted that the coverage in these articles sought to summarise the basic premise yet had become increasingly reductive as the BBC’s position had not been included. However, while it acknowledged the complainants’ concerns, it ultimately considered that it could not take the matter forward without the involvement of the BBC. The Commission took the opportunity of this decision to bring the matter to the newspaper’s attention; furthermore, it trusted that the newspaper would, in the event of any further coverage on the issue, take greater care to clearly present the position of the BBC, as per its public statement. Nonetheless, in the absence of a complaint from the BBC, the Commission was unable to pursue the matter formally.

In some cases, it is understandable that the PCC would decided a third-party complaint is not enough. However, in this case, given the repeated and very clear public denials from the BBC of the original claims, it seems odd, if unsurprising, that the PCC felt unable to fully consider the complaints.

it trusted that the newspaper would, in the event of any further
coverage on the issue, take greater care to clearly present the position
of the BBC, as per its public statement

is
worthless. After all, the Mail on Sunday had the BBC's very clear position in its original article but relegated those words to the end and ignored what they said. It chose to run its misleading story in the way it did anyway.

Incidentally, Peter Wright, the Mail on Sunday's editor, sits on the PCC but we are assured editors leave the room if a complaint about their paper is up for discussion.

An Islamic cleric residing in Europe said that women should not be close to bananas or cucumbers, in order to avoid any “sexual thoughts.”

The unnamed sheikh, who was featured in an article on el-Sawsana news, was quoted saying that if women wish to eat these food items, a third party, preferably a male related to them such as their a father or husband, should cut the items into small pieces and serve.

He said that these fruits and vegetables “resemble the male penis” and hence could arouse women or “make them think of sex.”

As Editor of Bikyamasr.com, I am disappointed that I did not catch and hold this piece. The “Islamic cleric bans women from touching cucumbers, bananas for sexual resemblance,” article should not have run when it did. Arguably, it should not have been run at all. We should not have published about an “unnamed sheikh” in an unnamed European country unless we were able to garner more information on the issue, both on the sheikh himself and the news website the information was gathered from, independently.

We realize that as a growing news organization with a growing reputation and readership, we have an increased responsibility to not only verify our own material at the highest levels, but further investigate the quotes and articles of other news organizations before referencing their work.

This is our error. We apologize for the poor judgment on the matter. It is inexcusable. While the exact quote reported by Assawsana.com may well have been exactly what it was reported to be by that website, without a name and location behind this person and comment, it is difficult to find the information credible.

We recognize our pitfalls and their repercussions. The fact that this story was quoted by a large number of news organizations across the globe shows that our error in judgment can have serious, detrimental effects. For this, we would like to apologize to our readers for the inadequate editorial judgment I, as Editor and Founder, made in this instance.

He adds:

We will continue to push for more information on this story, from Assawsana.com and other sources, in order to interrogate the accuracy of their original article. If we cannot uncover more information, then we take it as our duty to make this clear and do everything in our power to spread that revelation to those who have sourced and quoted us this past week.

Monday, 12 December 2011

In November, several newspapers reported comments from Ron Henry, the Mayor of Gila Bend, Arizona who had spoken about Prince Harry's imminent arrival at a nearby airbase for a helicopter training course.

"There are probably some fathers here in Gila Bend who would go to extremes to protect their daughters. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and we have some very pretty girls here. Some of the dads won't take too kindly to a Prince fornicating the night away and drinking into the small hours. It is a very quiet town with a lot of good Christian people. This isn't a party town."

“On behalf of the Town of Gila Bend, I’d like to extend a warm welcome to Prince Harry and his fellow pilots as they conduct training at the Barry Goldwater Air Force Base...

“I am deeply saddened that comments written by the Daily Mail were not only taken out of context but also, total fabrications. In fact, the negative comments were the words of the reporter, who chose to sensationalize and fabricate a story, rather than report the truth. I would never make such outlandish comments. We have tremendous respect and adoration for Prince Harry and the Royal Family. We are excited, proud and honored to have him in our community, and we would like extend every courtesy to make his stay as comfortable as possible.”

In an article of 8 November we carried in good faith a news agency report that said Mayor of Gila Bend, Ron Henry, had warned Prince Harry not to ‘fornicate the night away’ whilst on an army posting to the Arizona town.

We would like to make clear that Mr Henry did not make this statement and apologise to him for this error.

The Sun's article still carries the 'fornicate' line, however. It also claims:

options in Gila Bend are somewhat more limited — the town boasts just one bar and no hard liquor licence.

Sunday, 11 December 2011

Last Sunday's article 'Kate's crimpers go to war' may have left the impression that Richard Ward, proprietor of the Richard Ward Hair & Metrospa salon in Chelsea, was jealous of James Pryce, a former employee, who styled the Duchess of Cambridge's hair on the day of the Royal Wedding. The article might also have suggested that Mr Ward was trying to capitalise on the salon's Royal links. We accept that Mr Ward has always given full credit to Mr Pryce for his work and that Mr Ward behaved in a totally proper manner with regard to any publicity before the Royal Wedding. We apologise for any embarrassment caused.

It says the story 'may have left the impression' the proprietor was 'jealous' of a former employee.

How is it that the article 'may' have given that 'impression'?

Perhaps the full headline from the original (now deleted) article can explain:

Kate's crimpers go to war: It's curling tongs at dawn as Royal hairdesser cuts and runs from 'jealous' salon boss.

In addition to the overarching complaint that the article had reported the wrong verdict, the complainants also drew the Commission's attention to: the inclusion of quotes attributed to prosecutors, apparently reacting to the guilty verdict ("justice has been done" although "it was sad two young people would be spending time in jail"); a description of the reaction in the court room to the supposed verdict ("Knox...sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friends hugged each other in tears"; Meredith Kercher's family "remained expressionless, staring straight ahead, glancing over just once at the distraught Knox family"); and the claims that Ms Knox was "taken out of court escorted by prison guards and into a waiting van which took her back to her cell" and would be "put on a suicide watch".

The Mail's response was:

The newspaper apologised that the wrong verdict had been published on its website for around 90 seconds. It explained that - in high-profile cases such as this - it was standard practice for newspapers to prepare two stories in advance. There had been confusion in the court as the judge had initially found Ms Knox guilty of slander; he had then found her not guilty of murder. As a result, several news sources had initially published the wrong verdict. The quotations had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial, to be published in the event that the appeal was rejected. In addition, the Italian authorities had advised the reporter that all those found guilty of murder were placed on suicide watch as a matter of course.

The newspaper said that the individual responsible for the error had been disciplined. Moreover, it had published an explanation online apologising to its readers for the error. The correct verdict had been reported in its print edition the following day. The newspaper also made clear that it had launched an immediate internal inquiry to examine its procedures in the light of the complaint. As a result, ‘set and hold' stories would now be commissioned to include only the basic verdict and factual background material: there would be no colour and no quotes based on possible outcomes.

The PCC - rightly - upheld the complaints and said:

the Commission was particularly concerned about other aspects of the report, especially the account of the reaction by those in the courtroom to the apparent verdict, and to the subsequent actions of Ms Knox. In the Commission's view, the article had sought to present contemporaneous reporting of events (describing, in colourful terms, how individuals had physically behaved) which simply had not taken place. This was clearly not acceptable.

The Commission did not see any difficulty in newspapers writing ‘set and hold' articles. It understood that there were, at times, pressures to ensure that readers were informed of current affairs at the earliest opportunity. However, it is also vitally important that descriptions of events, especially trials, are published in a manner which complies with the Editors' Code. Describing reactions and behaviour that have not taken place, in a factual manner as if they had, must always raise a breach of Clause 1 of the Code.

The quotes they then attribute to Farah have him explaining how he felt when he was left off the list last year:

"It's one thing feeling like you should be nominated but actually getting nominated is another. I was disappointed last year. I had a great year and felt I should have been nominated. But I wasn't. I just said to myself 'I'll keep training and next year I'll make sure I'm there'."

I would like to correct what was written in The Sun newspaper today. When asked about the people who missed out a SPOTY nomination I tried to explain that it is disappointing not to be nominated when you had a good year, as was the case with me last year. At no point did I say or imply anything negative towards the men or women who missed out.

The phrases “…a dig at women….and wasting their time moaning….” are completely made up by the journalist. There were some excellent female sporting performances this year, some of which deserved to be in the top 10.

When reporting on Mark Duggan's funeral on 9 September, the MailOnline's initial splash headline said: 'Gangsta salute for 'a fallen soldier'' (hat-tip to The Media Blog). This appeared to be based solely on photos that emerged of mourners reaching out towards Duggan's coffin.

As mourners prepared to set off from the house, the bishop called them to stand on the pavement beside the wooden carriage... He urged the mourners to stretch their arms towards the carriage as he prayed.

The next day, the Express - never shy of echoing what has been reported by the Mail - repeated the claim, adding that the 'gangsta salute' (that wasn't) was 'chilling':

An earlier version of this article suggested that mourners lining the streets as Mark Duggan’s body was carried to his funeral made “gang-style” salutes. We have been informed that the salute pictured above referred to a call by Bishop Kwaku Frimpong-Manson at an earlier service for mourners to “stretch [their] hands towards the casket and thank God for Mark’s life as he begins his heavenly journey”. We are happy to clarify this and regret any confusion or distress caused.

As usual, the clarification tries to turn a definite statement into a mere suggestion, and tries to turn 'gangsta salute' into '"gang-style" salutes'.

But as the Mail did 'tone down' their headline within a day or so, why has it take them so long to admit their error?

And will the Express - which has withdrawn from the PCC - follow the Mail's lead, or will they continue to mislead about the 'gangsta salute'.

Tuesday, 6 December 2011

I can’t believe the phoney furore over Jeremy Clarkson is still rumbling on, just because he joked that public sector strikers should be shot. The plot has well and truly been lost. Where does all this puerile hair-trigger outrage come from?

When former Daily Star reporter Rich Peppiatt gave evidence at the Leveson Inquiry last week, he referred to the 'huge influence' of PR on tabloid 'stories':

There are more PRs than there are journalists. You get into your inbox every day dozens upon dozens upon dozens of press releases from various companies all trying to get in the paper, get their brand mentioned.

And many of them do get into the paper. Every day there are numerous 'stories' in the papers based on surveys of 2,000 people (so we're told). But, said Peppiatt:

the veracity of where that survey has come from -- is it representative, how many people were asked -- are simply not questions you're encouraged to ask. You know, you just take it at face value: "Yeah, I'm sure that will do for us." Because as I say, it's not about necessarily finding the truth of something; it's simply sort of filling the hole.

If it's not based on a survey, it's based on academic or scientific research. For example, a few weeks ago, this press release was repeated by the Express:

The paper's Nathan Rao stated:

Now a study shows an extract of it taken regularly could slow down the deterioration of the body’s DNA cells, which in turn can delay the ageing process.

Later in the article, he reported that it was an 'industry-funded study'.

The press release was designed to sell pomegranate-extract capsules PomeGreat PurePlus. The Express mentioned the product:

Commercial versions of the extract are already available in the UK from the Pomegreat PurePlus company in a capsule form or as a juice drink.

They also mentioned that the 'study' had been untaken by Dr Sergio Streitenberger at 'Spain’s Probeltebio laboratories'.

I was surprised because I hadn't written anything for the Mirror....If the words are familiar to you, that'll be because you read my last blog.

As did someone at The Mirror. Who then cut and pasted it into the paper. Odd.

Apparently someone on the Radio 2 breakfast show was talking about how I'd written a piece for The Mirror on the whole Clarkson thing too. I don't imagine many of those who read it thought that it wasn't written specifically for the paper.